Perez v. Lewis

84 F. App'x 926
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 22, 2003·No. No. 02-55795; D.C. No. CV-00-13212-CAS·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM**

A pre-trial identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive only if it gives rise to “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); see also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). An identification procedure does not offend due process if, under the totality of the circumstances, it is reliable. See id. at 199-200.

The eyewitness who identified defendant saw him up close in both robberies, recognized him at the second robbery as the man who committed the first and was highly certain in his testimony. Accordingly, the state appellate court’s decision that the identification was admissible was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Perez v. Lewis, 84 F. App'x 926 (9th Cir. 2003).

84 F. App'x 926 (Perez v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Perez v. Lewis, Warden
543 U.S. 848 (Supreme Court, 2004)